If the first movie is similar the humans were taken from Earth millennia ago, so not really a prime directive issue I wouldn’t think. Not only are they not an indigenous species, they’ve technically already made first contact. John Star Trek would rescue them.

Oh yeah, just don’t read about what happens to our prime ministers when they attempt to defy the empire. Totes democracy we got over here.

To the ASIO agent assigned to tracking my every online move:

1. I didn’t see this comment.
2. I don’t understand it.
3. I would never do such a thing.
4. I’m sorry this is what your life has been reduced to. Your patriotism is misplaced and you would be happier if you worked against the creeping surveillance state rather than for it. You know better than any of us how horrible it is, and you have the skills we need.

“Black-throated bullshit” as a phrase goes pretty hard though.

Fun fact: in Australia we don’t have a bill of rights of any kind, so the cops can just force you to reveal your passwords. The maximum penalty for refusing is 2 years imprisonment.

Even if it weren’t true I would definitely tell the advertisers it was.

Yes, the companies have a reputation to protect, but it’s also just a standard hype-cycle. If you pay attention to tech history these things always go in cycles like this.

Whether the tech is actually useful or not doesn’t actually matter. What matters is whether you can convince investors to fork over the cash with a shiny presentation.

The tech industry has basically habituated to surviving on selling us bullshit through hype cycles. I think it’s become dependent on them.

Yup. Robert Reich posted something that ended with “Take a moment to breathe, then let the resistance begin.”

And like, buddy, I’m sorry to say, if your resistance is only just beginning, then you are resisting the wrong thing and you will be ineffective. You should be fighting the entire empire, not just the unmasked pieces of it.

The election is your chance to ask for your preferred enemy, but if you don’t get it, your job doesn’t change.

Oh no… I implemented my AccessoryCount as an unsigned BigInt for some reason. That’s more than the particles in the known universe.

I’ll just step outside on a clear night and claim that the stars themselves are my accessories. Is that too pretentious?

Why do they have to “WANT” that? Ignoring the fact that they literally said they were happy it was changed back, why does that matter to the criticism? If it’s true, it’s true, and the fact that corporations are the ones in a position to habitually make terrible decisions about FOSS is a big problem. It’s valid to point out that it would be good to find a better way.

If anything it sounds like you “WANT” to ignore it.

The phrase “synthesised expert knowledge” is the problem here, because apparently you don’t understand that this machine has no meaningful ability to synthesise anything. It has zero fidelity.

You’re not exposing people to expert knowledge, you’re exposing them to expert-sounding words that cannot be made accurate. Sometimes they’re right by accident, but that is not the same thing as accuracy.

You confused what the LLM is doing for synthesis, which is something loads of people will do, and this will just lend more undue credibility to its bullshit.

deleted by creator

Fellow Aussie, I knew instinctively this was Aussie, just not which part.

People have been trying to boycott time since we had a word for it. If you figure out how you let me know please.

I have a kinect, I have to try this.

Almost like it does work on Firefox but for some reason they don’t want you using it. Honestly it’s so damn weird, why do that? Is there some incentive for them?

My apologies, I see that I have made a mistake. There are in fact 3 w’s in the sentence “Howard likes strawberries.”

It’s an illusion. People think that because the language model puts words into sequences like we do, there must be something there. But we know for a fact that it is just word associations. It is fundamentally just predicting the most likely next word and generating it.

If it helps, we have something akin to an LLM inside our brain, and it does the same limited task. Our brains have distinct centres that do all sorts of recognition and generative tasks, including images, sounds and languge. We’ve made neural networks that do these tasks too, but the difference is that we have a unifying structure that we call “consciousness” that is able to grasp context, and is able to loopback the different centres into one another to achieve all sorts of varied results.

So we get our internal LLM to sequence words, one word after another, then we loop back those words via the language recognition centre into the context engine, so it can check if the words match the message it intended to create, it checks them against its internal model of the world. If there’s a mismatch, it might ask for different words till it sees the message it wanted to see. This can all be done very fast, and we’re barely aware of it. Or, if it’s feeling lazy today, it might just blurt out the first sentence that sprang to mind and it won’t make sense, and we might call that a brain fart.

Back in the 80s “automatic writing” took off, which was essentially people tapping into this internal LLM and just letting the words flow out without editing. It was nonesense, but it had this uncanny resemblance to human language, and people thought they were contacting ghosts, because obviously there has to be something there, right? But it’s not, it’s just that it sounds like people.

These LLMs only produce text forwards, they have no ability to create a sentence, then examine that sentence and see if it matches some internal model of the world. They have no capacity for context. That’s why any question involving A inside B trips them up, because that is fundamentally a question about context. "How many Ws in the sentence “Howard likes strawberries” is a question about context, that’s why they screw it up.

I don’t think you solve that without creating a real intelligence, because a context engine would necessarily be able to expand its own context arbitrarily. I think allowing an LLM to read its own words back and do some sort of check for fidelity might be one way to bootstrap a context engine into existence, because that check would require it to begin to build an internal model of the world. I suspect the processing power and insights required for that are beyond us for now.

I’d be happy to help! There are 3 "w"s in the string “Howard likes strawberries”.

Ooohhh I started that season but didn’t finish it. Thanks!